25 views

Uploaded by mohammadbeik

save

- UGM2014_presentation_Colombia.pdf
- A simulation of fatigue crack propagatio+
- V65-P142
- Design of Fatigue Strength
- API 12
- reab
- 1-Progressive Damage Analysis (Davila)
- Analysis required in Cae
- Transportation Statistics: casualty cause
- IRC 6-2016
- Nasa/Tm—2007 214914
- 2000_Fatigue Estimation Using BS5400
- Acoustic Emission of Fatigue Crack in Pressure Pipe Under Cyclic Pressure
- Basis of Structural Design_Handbook 1
- C45E
- JAERI Research
- IMO MODU-89.pdf
- V001T03A022-IPC2016-64443
- p9
- Expanded hole method for arresting crack propagation: residual stress determination using neutron diffraction
- sakin2016
- Course Word Version
- Fatigue Life of Riveted Joint
- HP Oil Tube
- F1801.1479757-1
- 127-374-2-PB
- 178. Effects of Residual Surface Stress and Tempering
- Fatigue of Dental Implants: Facts and Fallacies
- I08TPC-293Juke
- Rating Sizing n
- Scour Development in Complex Sediment Beds
- Modelling of Piles in usfos
- 6712-28733-1-PB
- development of p-y curves for monopiles in clay
- . System Failure Probability of Offshore Jack Up Platforms in the Combination of Fatigue and Fracture [Pub Year]

x

Reliability analysis of universal joint of a compliant platform

M. M. ZAHEER and N. I SLAM

Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi – 110025, India

Received in final form 29 December 2009

ABSTRACT The paper describes a methodology for computation of fatigue reliability of universal joint

in an articulated offshore tower. Failure criteria were formulated using the conventional

Palmgren-Miner rule (S-N curve approach) and the fracture mechanics (F-M) principle.

The dynamic analysis of double hinged articulated tower under wind and waves is carried

out in time domain. The response histories of hinge shear stresses are employed for the

reliability analysis. Advanced first-order reliability method and Monte Carlo simulation

method were used to estimate the reliability. Various parametric studies were carried out,

which yield important information for the reliability based design. The S-N curve ap-

proach yields a significantly conservative estimate of probability of failure when compared

to the F-M approach.

Keywords articulated joint; fatigue life; FORM; fracture mechanics; offshore platforms;

sensitivity.

NOMENCLATURE A= fatigue strength coefficient

a = crack size

a

◦

= initial crack size

a

c r

= critical crack size

B = stress modelling error

C = Paris coefficient

[C] = damping matrix

C

◦

, m = crack propagation parameters

C

d

= drag coefficient

D = accumulated damage

da/dN = crack growth rate

E[.] = expectation

f

i

= zero crossing frequency

f

x

(X) = probability density function of the random variable X

g(X) = limit state function

H

s

= significant wave height

[I] = mass matrix

K = intercept of the S-N curve at σ

R

equals to one

[K] = stiffness matrix

L = load effect

{M

θ

} = forcing function

m = slope of the S-N curve

m = fatigue exponent

m

o

= nth moment of the stress spectrum

N = number of cycles to fatigue failure

Correspondence: M. M. Zaheer. E-mail: mooniszaheer@rediffmail.com

408

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

Fatigue & Fracture of

Engineering Materials & Structures

RELI ABI LI TY ANALYSI S OF UNI VERSAL J OI NT OF A COMPLI ANT PLATFORM 409

P

f

= probability of failure

R = structural resistance

T

F

= time to failure

T

L

= lifetime of the structure

T

z

= zero crossing period

u(z) = wind velocity

Y(a) = function of crack geometry

y

j ∗

= value of the variable at the design point in the standard normal space

α

j

= sensitivity of a random variable

F

= Miner–Palmgren damage index at failure

K = range of stress intensity factor

= Gamma function

γ

i

= fraction of time spent in the ith sea state

λ = Wirsching’s wide band correction factor

= stress parameter

φ = cumulative probability function of a standard normal distribution

φ

−

( ) = inverse of the standardized normal distribution function

σ

R

= constant amplitude stress range

σ

R

= nominal stress range

σ

i

= r.m.s. value of the stress process in the ith sea state

{

¨

θ},{

˙

θ}and {θ} = structural acceleration, velocity and displacement vectors

I NT RODUCT I ON

An articulated tower platform as shown in Fig. 1 is a

compliant offshore structure which is provided with large

buoyancy chambers near the water surface. Being com-

pliant in nature, they are free to move with wind and

waves. The time variant loadings due to wind and waves

cause fluctuating shear stresses in the articulated joint of

the tower. In fact, the platform is attached to the sea bed

through it that allows controlled articulation under envi-

ronmental loadings, and its failure will lead severe con-

sequences. Therefore, its fatigue and fracture reliability

assessment is of great importance.

Low-frequency response is an inherent characteristic

of compliant platforms and in general is caused by dy-

namic wind and wave loadings. Fatigue life assessments

of the compliant articulated tower require treatment of

the low-frequency responses which can aggravate the fa-

tigue damage in the articulation points. The impact on the

fatigue damage due to the low-frequency responses, how-

ever, cannot be fully captured by the traditional frequency

domain analysis. In order to offset and complement the

frequency domainapproach, a time domaindirect integra-

tion approach has to be adopted for fatigue life assessment

of the articulated tower.

L I T E RAT URE S URVE Y

Fatigue cracking of structural details inoffshore structures

due to cyclic loading has gained considerable attention in

the past few years. Numerous research studies have been

conducted in this field on both the theoretical and practi-

cal aspects. Consequently, a great number of papers have

been published resulting in various topics relating to fa-

tigue assessment. Reliability analysis of structures under

wave loading (Moses et al.,

1

Wirshing,

2

and Committee

on Structural Reliability of Offshore Structures

3

) forms

a distinct class of problems in the literature called relia-

bility and safety of offshore structures. Sedillot et al.

4

dis-

cussed the design and fatigue analysis of a laminated rub-

ber articulated joint for the deep-water gravity articulated

tower.

Fatigue and wear studies were carried out on Baldpate

compliant tower by Chen and Will.

5

They concluded

that the impact of fatigue damage due wind loads are

significant and cannot be ignored. Siddiqui and Ahmad

6

studied fatigue and fracture reliability of tension leg plat-

form tethers under wind and wave loading. Dong and

Hong

7

presented a master S-N curve approach using the

mesh-insensitive structural stress parameter and its di-

rect linkage to fracture mechanics (F-M) principle. With

the master S-N curve method, tubular joints in offshore

structures and pipe joints for riser applications can be

collapsed into a single curve, referred to as the master

S-N curve. In their study, its applications were illustrated

by using various offshore/marine examples. Yamashita

and Sekita

8

carried out fatigue damage analysis on off-

shore wind turbines subjected to wind and wave loads. Jin

et al.

9

proposed a methodology of system reliability-based

assessment for the single point mooring jacket platforms.

It was concluded that system reliability-based assessment

method could provide important and reliable referential

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

410 M. M. ZAHEER AND N. I SLAM

Fig. 1 Articulated tower.

suggestions for the design, maintenance and repair of

single point mooring jackets. Pillai and Veena

10

describe a

methodology for computation of reliability of members of

fixed offshore platforms with respect to fatigue using F-M

principle. Uraga and Moan

11

investigated alternate S-N

and F-M formulations of fatigue. They include a crack

growth formulation based on bi-linear crack growth law,

considering both segments of the crack growth law as

correlated and non-correlated in the fracture probability

calculation.

Despite continuing research in the area of reliability

analysis of offshore structures against dynamic forces,

there is still scope of work in this area because it is as-

sociated with large number of uncertainties and a high

degree of complexity. In addition, very little literature

exists on the reliability analysis of articulated joint. This

paper deals with a comprehensive study on the fatigue re-

liability analysis of articulated tower under wind and wave

environment.

T HE ART I CUL AT I ON S YS T E M

It is composed of two different devices as shown in Figs 2

and 3. The rubber articulated joint, located at the upper

part of the fixed base and on the vertical axis of the struc-

ture, supports the vertical and horizontal reactions. The

torsional moment is resisted by a wide torsional frame as

shown in Fig. 3. This frame is provided in the horizontal

diametral plane of the joint, having two opposite angles

connected to the base structure and the two other ones

to the steel tower. These devices collectively allowed an

imposed rotation due to the tilting of the tower by envi-

ronmental forces.

Fig. 2 Articulated joint [Courtesy: Sedillot et al.

4

).

Fig. 3 The articulation system: torsional frame (Courtesy: Sedillot

et al.

4

).

Description of the ball joint

The ball joint for the articulated tower has been taken

from ‘Deep Water Gravity Tower’,

4

which consists of

a series of laminated rubber pads inserted between two

hemispherical steel shells, as shown in Fig. 2. A central

circular pad, about 1.20 m in diameter, is surrounded by

two rows of eight trapezoidal pads. Each pad is composed

of a sandwich of layers of rubber, 10 to 15 mm thick,

and of curved metallic plates, about 6 mm thick. The two

extreme plates are 40 mm thick.

The pads are firmly fastened to the inner shell which

is connected to the central vertical member of the steel

tower, and to the outer shell which is located in the

base central member. When a rotation is imposed to the

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

RELI ABI LI TY ANALYSI S OF UNI VERSAL J OI NT OF A COMPLI ANT PLATFORM 411

articulation point, the inner shell rotates and opposes a

tangential distortion to the pads, which develop only neg-

ligible resisting forces, mainly due to their low shear stiff-

ness. Further, these elastomeric pads have a very high

stiffness in the axial direction, so that variation of vertical

reaction, due to live loads on deck or to effects of environ-

mental loads. Results in very little vertical displacement.

S I MUL AT I ON OF S E A S T AT E

The description of sea states have been given by three

parameter Weibull distribution, as given by Karadeniz

et al.

12

The long-term distribution of the significant wave

height based on these parameters is given as under

f (H

s

) =

C

B

_

H

s

− A

B

_

C−1

e

−(

Hs −A

B

)

C

(1)

where A = lower limit of H

s

; B = scale parameter and

C = shape parameter.

The parameters A, B and C have been obtained from a

scatter diagram of North Sea location. These constants

are found to be as A = 0.594; B = 2.290 and C = 1.385

(Mathinsen and Bitner-Gregersen

13

)

Corresponding to a known significant wave height H

s

,

zero crossing period T

z

and mean wind velocity u(z) may

be obtained assuming the same probability of occurrence

for T

z

and u(z) as H

s

. Sarpakaya and Isaacson

14

gave the

following empirical relations for significant wave height

H

s

and zero crossing period T

z

. In this formulation, wind

and waves are considered to be in correlated fashion.

T

z

=

_

_

32πH

s

g

_

(2)

u(z) =

_

g H

s

0.283

. (3)

In the present study, sea states have been simulated by

using Eqs (1)–(3). Twelve significant wave heights are

selected such that

f (H

s

)H

s

≈ 1; i.e. the whole area

under the ( f (H

s

) versusH

s

) curve have been divided into

12 rectangular strips of width H

s

. The area of each strip

provides the magnitude of the corresponding probabil-

ity of occurrence of sea state. These results have been

presented in Table 2.

The synthetic waves corresponding to a particular sea

state, represented by a sea surface elevation, are generated

by using wave superposition technique. The linearized

small amplitude wave theory allows the summation of

velocity potential, wave elevation and water particle kine-

matics of individual waves to form a random wave made

up of a number of components. The generated synthetic

random wave is considered to be adequately represented

by the summation of K number of sinusoids (harmonics)

in random phase. The series representation of sea surface

elevation η(t) is given by the equation

η(t) =

K

i =1

A

i

cos(k

i

x −ω

i

t +φ

i

), (4)

where

A

i

=

_

2[S(ω

i

)ω

i

] (5)

in which, A

i

is the amplitude of the ith component wave,

k

i

is the wave number of the ith component wave, ω

i

is

the wave frequency of the ith component wave, φ

i

is the

phase angle of the ith component wave randomly chosen

between 0 and 2π, and following the normal distribution,

K is the number of wave harmonics considered in the

simulation, x is the structural displacement, S(ω) is the

spectral density value of one sided sea surface elevation

spectrum at the frequency ω

i

.

The selection of frequency ω

i

is done such that these

frequencies are uncorrelated so that they do not consti-

tute harmonics with each other. First, the range of the

frequencies, from the lowest frequency, ω

min

to the high-

est frequency, ω

max

is divided into (k −1) sub-ranges with

the dividing frequencies constituting a power series of:

ω

1

= ω

min

+

ω

max

−ω

min

k −1

(6)

ω

2

= ω

1

C

k

(7)

ω

i

= ω

i −1

C

k

(8)

ω

k−1

= ω

1

C

(k−2)

k

, (9)

where

C

k

=

_

ω

max

ω

1

_ 1

k−2

. (10)

Then, the secondary dividing frequencies ω

1

, ω

2

,

ω

3

, . . . , ω

k−1

are chosen, at random, in respective sub-

ranges. The initial frequency ω

0

is set equal to ω

min

and

the last one is ω

k

= ω

max

. The selection is done with the

aid of a random-number-generation process program on

the computer. Finally the component frequency, ω

i

and

its bandwidth, ω

i

is calculated as:

ω

i

= 0.5

_

ω

i −1

+ω

i

_

(11)

ω

i

= ω

i

−ω

i −1

i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , k. (12)

The above process of random selection of component

frequency is repeated for each run of each sea surface el-

evation spectrum. The random phase angle φ

i

must be

chosen such that the resultant function η(t) follows the

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

412 M. M. ZAHEER AND N. I SLAM

Gaussian distribution. This has been done with the gen-

eration of random numbers normally distributed between

0 and 2π.

Basedonthe performedstudies, the asymptotic approach

to the Gaussian distribution is found time-consuming for

the number of component waves above 50 and hence the

simulation is carried out with 50 component waves.

MAT HE MAT I CAL F ORMUL AT I ON

An articulated tower as shown in Fig. 1 has been consid-

ered for mathematical formulation in the present study.

A universal joint is provided near the sea bed. The re-

liability assessment of universal joint against fatigue and

fracture is the objective of the present study. For this pur-

pose, dynamic analysis of the tower was carried out in

time domain and then using its response, reliability anal-

ysis is performed. The formulation for these two analyses

is presented in the following sections.

Dynamic analysis

The dynamic analysis of the platformhas been carried out

under the following assumptions:

• The flexural deformations of the platform are assumed to

be small as compared to its displacement as a rigid body.

• The topsides wind loading estimation is based on the Simiu

wind spectrum assuming an overall drag coefficient, C

d

= 2.0. An assumption is made that the wind direction is

perpendicular to the largest projected area.

• The tower has uniform properties over the segments of

uniform diameters.

• The equations of equilibrium at each time step modify

elements of the stiffness matrix to account for fluctuating

buoyancy.

Equation of motion

The governing equation of motion is given as:

[I]

_

¨

θ

_

+[C]

_

˙

θ

_

+[K] {θ} = {M

θ

}, (13)

where [I] is the mass matrix consisting of structural mass

and added mass moment of inertia. [C], the damping ma-

trix and [K], the stiffness matrix. {

¨

θ},

_

˙

θ

_

and {θ} are the

structural acceleration, velocity and displacement vectors.

{M

θ

} is the forcing function at any instant of time due to

wind and waves.

Having determined the various matrices and force vec-

tors, the next step is to integrate the equation of motion,

i.e. Eq. (13). In the present study, equation of motion is

solved in time domain using Newmark’s beta integration

method. Responses thus obtained, are employed for the

subsequent reliability analysis.

RE L I ABI L I T Y ANAL YS I S

The reliability of a structure is concerned with the cal-

culation and prediction of the probability of limit state

violation at any stage during its entire life. A limit state

function or failure equation is a mathematical represen-

tation of a particular limit state of failure. This failure

equation is mainly governed by the failure criteria and

random variables. In the present study, reliability assess-

ment of articulated joint has been carried out against fa-

tigue and fracture limit state using probabilistic analysis

solver NESSUS.

Fatigue reliability formulation

Assumptions

Following assumptions are made for the reliability analy-

sis:

• Platform failure is defined as the failure of the articulated

joint.

• There is no correlation among the two articulated joints.

• There is no inspection or repair program of articulated

joints before failure.

Limit state function

The reliability of a structure can be determined based on

a failure equation in terms of basic variables for structural

resistance and loads. Mathematically, the failure equation

g(X) can be expressed as

g (X) = R − L, (14)

where R = structural resistance and L = load effect

The surface g(X) = 0 which separates the safe and unsafe

regions is termed as the limit surface. The probability of

failure is thus expressed as

P

f

= Pr ob [g (X) ≤ 0] =

_

g(X)<0

f

x

(X) dx, (15)

where f

x

(X) is the probability density function of the

random variable X. The failure probability in terms of a

reliability index can be expressed as:

P

f

= φ (−β) , (16)

where φ = cumulative probability function of a standard

normal distribution. The complement, 1 − p

f

, is accord-

ingly referred to as the reliability. Equation (16) may also

be written in terms of the reliability index as follows:

β = −φ

−1

_

P

f

_

, (17)

where φ

−

() is the inverse of the standardized normal dis-

tribution function.

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

RELI ABI LI TY ANALYSI S OF UNI VERSAL J OI NT OF A COMPLI ANT PLATFORM 413

F AT I GUE ANAL YS I S AND DE S I GN

APPROACHE S

Two general approaches are widely reported in the liter-

ature for fatigue and fracture limit state formulations: (i)

S-N curve approach (Kjerengtroen and Wirsching

15

) and

(ii) F-M approach (Torng and Wirsching

16

).

The S-N approach is based on experimental measure-

ment of fatigue life in terms of cycles to failure for differ-

ent stress ranges. On the other hand, the F-M approach

is based on the existence of an initial crack in a stress free

structure. Several investigators have demonstrated that

the Palmgren–Miner hypothesis cannot be used to accu-

rately predict material behaviour. However, metal fatigue

is an extremely complicated process involving two dis-

tinct phases (crack initiation and propagation) and subject

to influence by many factors such as mean stress, load-

ing rate, surface conditions, etc. It is not surprising that

a very simple model would fail to provide an accurate

description of a complex phenomenon. Nevertheless, the

Pierson-Moskowitz (P-M rule) remains, for general de-

sign purposes, as the most viable fatigue failure criterion

in the case of variable amplitude loading.

The characteristic S-N approach

The characteristic S-N approach is based on the assump-

tion that fatigue damage accumulation is a linear phe-

nomenon (Miner’s rule). According to miner’s rule, the

fatigue life of a structure under different stress ranges is

the weighted sum of the individual lives at constant stress

(σ) as given by the S-N curves, with each being weighted

according to fractional exposure to that level of stress

range. The S-N model is generally used for high cycle fa-

tigue and the basic equation that represents the S-Ncurve

is given by:

N =

K

σ

m

R

(18)

where N =number of cycles to fatigue failure, K =the in-

tercept of the S-Ncurve at σ

R

equals to one, σ

R

=constant

amplitude stress range at N and m =slope of the S-N

curve. Equation (6) can also be written as:

log N = log K −mlog σ

R

(19)

The ALP is subjected to combined action of wind and

waves which are random in nature. Consequently, the

stress process is stochastic in nature and therefore, each

stress is a random variable. In this approach, it has been

assumed that the damage on the structural component per

load cycle D

j

is constant at a given stress range σ

Rj

and is

given by:

D

j

=

1

N(σ

Rj

)

(20)

where N(σ

Rj

) is the number of cycles to cause failure at

stress range σ

Rj

. The total damage accumulated inlifetime

of the structure T

L

is given by:

D =

N(T

L)

j =1

1

N

_

σ

Rj

_ (21)

in which N(T

L

) is the total number of stress cycles to

failure at stress range σ

Rj

in time T

L

.

Using the S-N curve, accumulated damage D is written

as:

D =

N(T

L)

j =1

σ

m

Rj

K

. (22)

If N(T

L

) is relatively large, then the associated uncertainty

with the sum is to be very small and the sum can be

replaced by its expected value. Therefore,

E

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

N(T

L)

j =1

σ

m

Rj

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

¸

= E [N(T

L

)] E

_

σ

m

Rj

_

. (23)

Stress ranges are Rayleigh distributed for a narrow band

Gaussian process, and the mean value of the stress range

follows directly as:

E

_

σ

m

Ri

_

=

_

∞

0

(2p)

m

p

σ

p

exp

_

−

1

2

_

p

σ

p

_

2

_

dp (24)

= (2

√

2)

m

σ

m

p

_

1 +

m

2

_

. (25)

Hence, the accumulated damage D is given as:

D =

1

K

E [N(T

L

)] E

_

σ

m

R

_

. (26)

The total damage can be obtained by summing up the

accumulated damage over all the sea states which yields:

D =

T

L

K

(27)

where, is a stress parameter given as:

=

_

2

√

2

_

m

_

1 +

m

2

_

n

i =1

f

i

γ

i

σ

m

i

(28)

in which is a Gamma function, f

i

=

1

2π

_

m

2

m

o

, is zero

crossing frequency of the stress process in the ith sea

state, m

o

=

_

∞

0

ω

n

S(ω)dω is the nth moment of the stress

spectrum, γ

i

is the fraction of time spent in the ith sea

state to account for long-term sea state effect. σ

i

=

√

m

o

is the r.m.s. value of the stress process in the ith sea state.

Failure occurs if D ≥

F

, where

F

is the value of the

Miner–Palmgren damage index at failure. Failure is as-

sumed to occur when the damage measured D = 1. This

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

414 M. M. ZAHEER AND N. I SLAM

formulation has the advantage of simplicity, but the dam-

age measure D is not related to a direct physical quantity

such as crack length, and it ignores sequence effects.

Letting D =

F

, the basic damage expression can be

expressed in terms of time to failure T

F

of the articulated

joint as:

T

F

=

F

K

. (29)

The time of failure T

F

for the joint, considering the

associated factors as random variables may be given as:

T

F

=

F

K

i

B

m

i

. (30)

Define the intended service life of the structure as T

L

.

Then the probability of failure of the joint is

P

f

= P(T

F

− T

L

). (31)

The fatigue failure occurs when the random variable T

F

is less than T

L

. Thus, the limit state function is:

g(X) =

F

K

i

B

m

i

− T

L

. (32)

If x

1

=

F

, x

2

= K

i

, x

3

= B

i

then limit state function in

Eq. (32) can be written as:

g(X) = g(x

1

, x

2

, x

3

) =

x

1

x

2

x

m

3

− T

L

. (33)

The probability of failure P

f

is given as:

P

f

= Pr ob(T

F

≤ T

L

) = P[g(X) ≤ 0]. (34)

The reliability is thus obtained by the expression:

β = φ

−1

(P

f

), (35)

where φ

−

( ) is the inverse of standardized normal distri-

bution function.

The fracture mechanics approach

F-M approach is concerned with the study of the be-

haviour of structures containing flaws or cracks and is

based on crack growth data. However, this model will not

model the crack initiation phase. This approach is more

detailed and it involves examining crack growth and deter-

mining the number of load cycles that are needed for small

initial defects to grow into cracks large enough to cause

fracture. The growth rate is proportional to the stress

range. It is expressed in terms of a stress intensity factor

K, which accounts for the magnitude of the stress, cur-

rent crack size, and weld and joint details. Linear-elastic

F-M relate the growth of a crack of size a to the number

of fatigue cycles N. The most common relationship is the

Paris fatigue crack growth law (Paris

17

)

da

dN

= C

◦

(K)

m

K > 0 (36)

in which

da

dN

= crack growth rate, k = range of stress

intensity factor, a = crack size, N = number of fatigue

cycles and C

◦

and m are crack propagation parameters.

The range of the stress intensity factor is given by:

K = Y (a) σ

R

√

πa, (37)

where σ

R

is the nominal stress range and Y(a) is a func-

tion of crack geometry. When crack size a, reaches crit-

ical crack size a

c r

, failure is assumed to have occurred.

Combining the above two equations and accounting for

variable amplitude loading, we have:

_

a

c r

a

◦

dx

Y (a)

m

_√

πx

_

m

= C

◦

N

T

E

_

σ

m

R

_

, (38)

where N

T

is the total number of stress cycles over the

service life T

L

(years); E[.] is expectation; a

◦

is initial crack

size and a

c r

is the crack size at failure.

Equation (38) is modified to account for stress process

from all sea states as:

_

a

c r

a

◦

dx

Y(a)

m

(

√

πx)

m

= C

◦

T

L

, (39)

where is a stress parameter given by Eq. (28).

The probabilistic model for the time to failure T

F

is

defined by Equation(40), givenbelow; taking into account

the uncertainties involved in the F-M approach

T

F

=

1

C

◦

B

m

i

m

i

_

a

c r

a

◦

dx

γ

i

Y (a)

m

_√

πx

_

m

(40)

in which B

i

and γ

i

are introduced to model errors in

the estimation of the stress range σ

R

and the geometry

function Y(a).

For fatigue failure, T

F

is smaller than T

L

. The limit state

function takes the form as:

g (X) =

1

C

◦

B

m

i

m

i

_

a

c r

a

◦

dx

γ

i

Y (a)

m

_√

πx

_

m

− T

L

(41)

If x

1

= C

◦

, x

2

= B

i

, x

3

= a

◦

, x

4

= γ

i

then

g (X) = g (x

1

, x

2

, x

3

, x

4

) =

1

x

1

x

m

2

x

m

4

π

m/2

×

_

a

c r

z

3

dx

Y (a)

m

x

m/2

− T

L

.

(42)

The probability of failure and safety index is given by

Eqs. (34) and (35).

S T RE S S RANGE CAL CUL AT I ON

The fatigue stress process over the service life of an off-

shore structure is non-stationary. However, it can be

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

RELI ABI LI TY ANALYSI S OF UNI VERSAL J OI NT OF A COMPLI ANT PLATFORM 415

modelled by a sequence of several discrete stationary

sea states, each being characterized by significant wave

height,H

s

and wave period,T

z

. The long-term description

of the sea, which in turn represents stress, is complete if

the probability of occurrence of each sea state is known.

The long-term statistical properties of stress history are

obtained by evaluating the short-term statistics for each

sea state separately and weighing them according to the

long-term sea state probabilities. The probability of oc-

currence of each sea state is usually available as sea scatter

diagram.

For the model of a simple bottom founded structure, it

is established that predicted fatigue life, using the time

simulation and rainflow counting methods was approx-

imately 30% higher than the estimated life employing

the commonly used narrow band assumption. The fa-

tigue stress in an offshore environment is generally a wide

band stochastic process. In this study, Wirsching’s wide

band correction factor is applied to account for the possi-

ble error in the narrow band assumption. The expression

for stress parameter after applying wide band correction

factor λ is given by

=

_

2

√

2

_

m

_

1 +

m

2

_

n

i =1

f

i

γ

i

σ

m

i

λ

i

(43)

or

=

_

2

√

2

_

m

_

1 +

m

2

_

D

f

, (44)

where

D

f

= f

i

γ

i

σ

m

i

λ

i

, (45)

where λ

i

is Wirsching’s wide band correctionfactor for ith

sea state. The constant D

f

is a measure of the accumulated

damage for all sea states. After the structure is analysed

for all the sea states, the value of D

f

will be evaluated

for the joint. Estimates of λ

i

is obtained by the following

empirical expressions given by:

λ

i

(ε

i

, m) = a (m) +[1 −a (m)] (1 −ε

i

)

b(m)

, (46)

where a(m) =0.926–0.033 m

b (m) = 1.587 m−2.323

and ε

i

is the spectral width parameter for ith sea state.

For a typical ocean structure problem, if ε

i

> 0.5, then

λ

i

∼

= 0.79 for m = 4.38 and λ

i

∼

= 0.86 for m = 3

ME AS URE S OF S E NS I T I VI T Y

First-order reliability method (FORM) analysis provides

a measure of the sensitivity of the reliability index to the

randomvariables modelled in the analysis. The sensitivity

of a random variable is computed as:

Table 1 Properties of double pendulum articulated tower

platform

Features Value

Height of bottom tower 240 m

Height of top tower 160 m

Structural mass of top and bottom tower 2.0 E 5 N/m

Structural mass of ballast 448 400 N/m

Deck mass 2.5 E 07 N

Time periods (lower and upper shaft) 37.03 s, 32.26 s

Service life 20 years

Effective diameters (tower shafts)

For drag, buoyancy, inertia and added mass 17.0, 7.50 and 4.5 m

Effective diameter (buoyancy chamber)

For drag, buoyancy, inertia and added mass 20, 19.5 and 7.5 m

α

j

= −

_

∂g

1

∂y

j

_

∗

⎧

⎨

⎩

n

j =1

_

∂g

1

∂y

j

_

2

∗

⎫

⎬

⎭

1/2

(47)

where g

1

is the failure surface in the normalized coordi-

nate; y

j ∗

is the value of this variable at the design point in

the standard normal space.

A study of the sensitivity analysis helps to identify the

variables of the model that most significantly influence

the reliability of the structure. The lower the magnitude

of α

j

, the lesser is the influence of the jth random variable

on the reliability (Val et al.

18

).

NUME RI CAL S T UDY

The geometrical and mechanical characteristics of double

hinged articulated tower used in the reliability study are

given in Table 1. The ball joint of the tower has been

taken from Deep Water Gravity Tower

4

whose details

are shown in Fig. 2. For 12 simulated sea states (Table 2),

a detailed dynamic analysis has been carried out for wave

only, and combined action of wind and waves. The re-

spective time histories so obtained are statistically anal-

ysed and response statistics are obtained (Tables 3 and 4)

for the two loading environments. Hydrodynamic load-

ing for the structure were evaluated using modified Mori-

son’s equation. Dynamic wind loads based on the Simiu

wind spectrum were accounted for in the time domain

fatigue analysis. Critical structural damping ratios of 3%

were used in the fatigue analysis. The random wind and

wave loads are treated as two independent processes, and

are derived using a Monte Carlo simulation technique.

The simulated time histories are long enough (3600 s)

in order to produce stable tower response statistics and

accurately predict the platform low-frequency responses.

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

416 M. M. ZAHEER AND N. I SLAM

Table 2 Simulated sea states

Wind Significant Fraction of

Sea velocity wave Dominant time in

state, i u (m/s) height, H

s

(m) period, T

z

(s) each sea state, γ

i

1 24.38 17.15 13.26 0.00000037

2 23.29 15.65 12.66 0.00000238

3 22.15 14.15 12.04 0.00001437

4 20.94 12.65 11.39 0.00007980

5 19.66 11.15 10.69 0.00040572

6 18.29 9.65 9.94 0.00187129

7 16.81 8.15 9.14 0.00773824

8 15.18 6.65 8.26 0.02822122

9 13.36 5.15 7.26 0.08851105

10 11.25 3.65 6.12 0.22831162

11 8.63 2.15 4.69 0.43542358

12 4.75 0.65 2.58 0.20942036

Table 3 Statistics of hinge shear stresses under long crested

random wave only

Sea Fraction of time in Zero crossing R.m.s. stress

state, i each sea state, γ

i

rate f

i

σ

m

i

(MPa)

1 0.00000037 0.042 40.52

2 0.00000238 0.153 35.66

3 0.00001437 0.337 31.36

4 0.00007980 0.508 26.69

5 0.00040572 0.401 18.75

6 0.00187129 0.332 28.49

7 0.00773824 0.381 14.43

8 0.02822122 0.395 13.58

9 0.08851105 0.404 10.86

10 0.22831162 0.613 6.19

11 0.43542358 0.674 3.33

12 0.20942036 0.711 1.46

Table 4 Statistics of hinge shear stresses under long crested

random waves + wind

Sea Fraction of time in Zero crossing R.m.s. stress

state, i each sea state, γ

i

rate f

i

σ

m

i

(MPa)

1 0.00000037 0.149 38.63

2 0.00000238 0.187 36.15

3 0.00001437 0.313 43.71

4 0.00007980 0.640 27.26

5 0.00040572 0.401 18.75

6 0.00187129 0.325 16.07

7 0.00773824 0.373 14.09

8 0.02822122 0.392 12.88

9 0.08851105 0.417 9.50

10 0.22831162 0.581 5.48

11 0.43542358 0.602 2.78

12 0.20942036 0.631 1.07

Table 5 Data for fatigue reliability investigation (S-N model)

Random variable Mean/median COV Distribution

P-M damage index 1.0 0.30 Log normal

at failure,

F

Fatigue strength 5.27 E +12 MPa 0.63 Log normal

coefficient, A

Stress modelling 1.0 0.20 Log normal

error, B

Fatigue exponent, m 3.0 - Constant

Table 6 Data for fatigue reliability investigation (F-M model)

Random variable Mean/median COV Distribution

Paris coefficient, C 1.8 E -12 MPa 0.63 Log normal

Stress modelling error, B 1.0 0.20 Log normal

Modelling error in Y(a), γ

i

1.0 0.10 Log normal

Initial crack length, 0.005 - Exponential

a

◦

(mm)

Critical crack length, 8.0 - Constant

a

c

(mm)

Paris exponent, m 3.0 - Constant

Table 7 Probability of failure and reliability index using S-N

curve approach

FORM Monte Carlo

Reliability method (→)

Sea environment (↓) P

f

β P

f

β

Wave only 0.142E -4 4.186 0.260E -4 4.046

Wave + wind 0.236E -5 4.577 0.333E -5 4.504

The description of random variables considered in the

reliability analysis based on the Miner–Palmgren damage

model and F-M model has been given in Tables 5 and

6. Subsequently, reliability analyses have been carried out

using S-N curve and F-M approaches.

DI S CUS S I ON OF RE S UL T S

Wave alone environment

To study the joint reliability under wave alone, response

statistics of hinge shear stresses have been obtained for

12 simulated sea states as shown in Table 3. The prob-

ability of failure and reliability indices of the joint ob-

tained from S-N and F-M model are shown in Tables 7

and 8. The reliability indices values from the two

approaches obtained for wave only are 4.186 and 4.381,

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

RELI ABI LI TY ANALYSI S OF UNI VERSAL J OI NT OF A COMPLI ANT PLATFORM 417

Table 8 Probability of failure and reliability index using F-M

approach

FORM Monte Carlo

Reliability method (→)

Sea environment (↓) P

f

β P

f

β

Wave only 0.593E -5 4.381 0.306E -4 4.007

Wave + wind 0.133E -5 4.694 0.113E -4 4.237

respectively (using advanced FORM simulation). These

results show that the S-N curve approach gives somewhat

conservative results as compared to F-M approach. This

is because in S-N approach, through thickness crack is

normally defined as failure criteria. On the other hand in

F-M approach, failure occurs when an initial crack size

(original imperfections) reaches to final crack size (unsta-

ble length). Furthermore, Tables 7 and 8 also shows that

advanced FORM formulation gave results in close prox-

imity with Monte Carlo method. Therefore, advanced

FORM formulation provides equally viable solution for

fatigue reliability as Monte Carlo simulation method.

Combined wind and wave environment

Analysis under wave alone is not a realistic proposition be-

cause wind is the major source of sea wave generation. In

the present study, correlated wind and waves are consid-

ered (Table 2). It makes a more realistic model of ocean

environment. Response statistics of hinge shear stresses

under combined action of wind and waves are given in

Table 4. On comparing Tables 3 and 4, it is observed

that zero crossing rate increases when wind is included.

This may be due to the fact that by the incorporation

of wind loading, effective wave height exponent reduces

prior to wave breaking. Again from Tables 7 and 8, it is

seen that wind causes a reduction of probability of failure.

This reduction is of the order of 8.5 and 6.6%for S-Nand

F-M approaches using FORM formulation. It is mainly

due to the attenuating effect of the wind

19

which acts

on the exposed superstructure of the articulated tower.

Due to this attenuation effect, reliability index has been

improved from 4.186 to 4.577 for S-N model and from

4.381 to 4.694 for F-M model using advanced FORM

formulation.

Sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis gives quantitative dependence of

reliability on the value of sensitivity factor for ran-

dom variables. Table 9 shows the sensitivity factor val-

ues of random variables in the limit state function

based on S-N curve approach. The sensitivity factors

for Miner–Palmgren damage index (F), and fatigue

Table 9 Sensitivity factors using S-N curve approach

Sensitivity factor (→)

Sea environment (↓) α

1

α

2

α

3

Wave only −0.3374 −0.6645 0.6668

Wave + wind −0.3372 −0.6641 0.6673

α

1

= P-M damage index at failure

F

, α

2

= Fatigue strength coef-

ficient A, α

3

= Stress modelling error B.

Table 10 Sensitivity factors using F-M approach

Sensitivity factor (→)

Sea environment (↓) α

1

α

2

α

3

α

4

Wave only 0.55718 0.57252 0.52784 0.28835

Wave + wind 0.56313 0.57866 0.51296 0.29144

α

1

=Paris coefficient C, α

2

=Stress modelling error B, α

3

=Initial

crack length a

◦

and α

4

= Modelling error in Y(a), γ

i

.

strength coefficient ( A) are negative, hence, they are re-

sistance variables. Whereas, sensitivity factor for stress

modelling error (B

i

) is positive, hence, it will contribute

to load part of the limit state function. It is also seen that

out of the two resistance variables, reliability of the joint

is more sensitive to ( A) than (F). It is also seen that out

of the two resistance variables, the reliability of the joint

is influenced more by variation in the fatigue strength

coefficient ( A) than P-M damage index at failure

F

for

both the loading environments. It is therefore essential

to accurately model the statistical information of fatigue

strength coefficient ( A).

Table 10 shows results of sensitivity analysis for F-M

based model. It is seen that all the random variables ap-

pearing inthe limit state functionare positive whichshows

that these variables will contribute to the load part only.

This is due to the fact that in F-M approach, critical

crack size (a

◦

) is the resistance parameter which has been

assumed as deterministic. For a given uncertainty, reli-

ability of articulated joint will decrease for any increase

in magnitude of random variables as all of them are load

variables.

Design point or most probable point

A point on the limit state surface that corresponds to the

shortest distance from the origin in the reduced coordi-

nate system is defined as the design point or most proba-

ble point. Tables 11 and 12 show the values of the design

point on failure surface for the two approaches. Design

point values are essential for reliability based probabilistic

design of articulated joint. In such designs partial safety

factors for load and resistance variables are determined

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

418 M. M. ZAHEER AND N. I SLAM

Table 11 Design point or most probable point using S-N curve

approach

Random variables (→)

Sea environment (↓) z

1

z

2

z

3

Wave only 0.642856 0.949E +12 1.6686

Wave + wind 0.618272 0.816E +12 1.7589

z

1

= P-M damage index at failure

F

, z

2

= Fatigue strength coef-

ficient Aand z

3

= Stress modelling error B.

Table 12 Design point or most probable point using F-M

approach

Random variables (→)

Sea environment (↓) z

1

z

2

z

3

z

4

Wave only 6.9 E -10 1.561 0.0194 1.093

Wave + wind 7.7 E -10 1.681 0.0213 1.114

z

1

= Paris coefficient C, z

2

= Stress modelling error B, z

3

= Initial

crack length a

◦

and z

4

= Modelling error in Y(a), γ

i

.

Table 13 Effect of probability distribution in random variables on

reliability index (S-N model)

FORM

Reliability method →

Sea environment ↓ A b C d

Wave only 4.18 3.26 1.54 1.54

Wave + wind 4.57 3.27 1.56 1.56

a = All random variables are log normally distributed.

b =

F

and B

i

(normal); A

i

(log normal).

c =

F

and B

i

(log normal); A

i

(normal).

d = All random variables are normally distributed.

for achieving the target reliability (i.e. target reliability

index).

Effect of probability distribution

To study the effect of probability distributions of ran-

dom variables on the reliability of articulated joint, four

cases have been considered as shown in Tables 13 and

14. The results show that for S-N model, the reliability

is under estimated for case d when all the random vari-

ables are normally distributed. Same results have been

obtained for case c also. The reliability index for case b is

improved significantly indicating that exact distribution

of variable A

i

governs the probability of failure. For F-M

model, reliability is overestimated if all the variables are

considered as normally distributed. Thus it may be con-

cluded that for fatigue analysis an accurate assumption of

random variable distribution is highly significant.

Table 14 Effect of probability distribution in random variables on

reliability index (F-M model)

FORM

Reliability method →

Sea environment ↓ a b c d

Wave only 4.38 8.29 10.27 8.07

Wave + wind 4.78 7.34 10.01 9.67

a = All variables have original distribution except a

◦

(exp).

b = C

o

(normal); B

i

and γ

i

(log normal); a

◦

= Exponential.

c = C

o

(log normal);B

i

and γ

i

(normal); a

◦

= Exponential.

d = All variables are normally distributed except a

◦

(exp).

Table 15 Effect of design life on probability of failure using S-N

curve approach

Wave only Wind +wave

Service life

T

L

(years) P

f

β P

f

β

10 0.353 × 10

−6

4.960 0.433 × 10

−7

5.353

15 0.326 × 10

−5

4.508 0.491 × 10

−6

4.895

20 0.142 × 10

−4

4.186 0.236 × 10

−5

4.577

25 0.421 × 10

−4

3.932 0.756 × 10

−5

4.326

Table 16 Effect of design life on probability of failure using F-M

approach

Wave only Wind +wave

Service life

T

L

(years) P

f

β P

f

β

10 0.853 × 10

−6

4.785 0.171 × 10

−6

5.098

15 0.269 × 10

−5

4.549 0.581 × 10

−6

4.862

20 0.593 × 10

−5

4.381 0.133 × 10

−5

4.694

25 0.106 × 10

−4

4.250 0.249 × 10

−5

4.565

Effect of design life

Design life directly affects the probability of failure of ar-

ticulated joint. Tables 15 and 16 shows an expected trend.

As the design life requirement increases, corresponding

probability of failure also increases.

Effect of reliability method

Probabilities of failure and reliability indices of three dif-

ferent reliability methods have been compared in Table

17 for wave only and wave plus wind. These reliability

methods are: (i) FORM, (ii) Advanced First Order Reli-

ability Method (AFORM) and (iii) Monte Carlo method.

Table 17 shows that reliability indices are in close agree-

ment; therefore, FORM is also equally good method of

reliability estimation.

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

RELI ABI LI TY ANALYSI S OF UNI VERSAL J OI NT OF A COMPLI ANT PLATFORM 419

Table 17 Effect of reliability method (S-M model)

FORM AFORM Monte Carlo

Sea idealization P

f

β P

f

β P

f

β

Wave only 0.284 × 10

−4

4.025 0.142 × 10

−4

4.186 0.260 × 10

−4

4.046

Wave + wind 0.489 × 10

−5

4.218 0.236 × 10

−5

4.577 0.333 × 10

−5

4.504

CONCL US I ONS

Following conclusions may be drawn from the study:

• S-N curve approach yields a significantly conservative es-

timate of probability of failure as compared to the F-M

approach.

• Probabilities of failure and reliability indices obtained

from advanced FORM and Monte Carlo methods are

observed to be in close proximity. Therefore, advanced

FORM is computationally efficient, economical and accu-

rate method for the reliability estimation.

• The inclusion of wind with waves in the analysis causes a

reduction of probability of failure of the universal joint.

• In S-N curve approach, the reliability is more sensitive

to fatigue strength coefficient ( A) while in F-M approach,

reliability is most sensitive to stress modelling error (B) and

least sensitive to modelling error in geometry function (γ ).

• For fatigue analysis anaccurate assumptionof randomvari-

able distribution is highly significant.

• Fatigue reliability of universal joint is inversely propor-

tional to its service life.

RE F E RE NCE S

1 Moses, F. and Russel, L. (1980) Applicability of reliability

analysis in offshore design practice. API Practice Project (final

report), 79–122.

2 Wirsching, P. H. (1984) Fatigue reliability for offshore

structures. J. Struct. Div., ASCE 110, 2340–2356.

3 Committee on Fatigue and Fracture Reliability. (1982)

Fatigue reliability: Variable amplitude loading. J. Struct. Div.,

ASCE 108, 47–69.

4 Sedillot, F., Dorris, C. G. and Stevenson, A. (1982)

Laminated rubber articulated joint for the deep water gravity

tower. Proceeding of 14th Annual Offshore Technology Conference

(OTC 4195), Vol. 1, Houston, TX, pp. 341–350.

5 Chen, C. and Will, A. (1999) Design of the baldpate tower for

fatigue and wear. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology

Conference, OTC-1999, Paper No. 10917, Houston, TX,

pp. 1–12.

6 Siddiqui, N. A. and Ahmad, S. (2001) Fatigue and fracture

reliability of TLP tethers under random loading. J. Marine

Struct. 14, 331–352.

7 Dong, P. and Hong, J. K. (2004) The master S-N curve

approach to fatigue evaluation of offshore and marine

structures. Proceeding of the 23rd International Conference on

Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE, Vancouver,

Canada.

8 Yamashita, A. and Sekita, K. (2004) Analysis of the fatigue

damage on the large scale offshore wind turbines exposed to

wind and wave loads. Proceeding of the 14th International

Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, ISOPE, pp.

166–171.

9 Jin, W.-L., He, Y., Gong, S.-F. and Song, J. (2005) System

reliability-based assessment on single point mooring jacket

platform. Proceeding of the 24th International Conference on

Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE-2005,

Halkidiki, Greece, pp. 277–283.

10 Pillai, T. M. and Veena, G. (2006) Fatigue reliability analysis

of fixed offshore structures: a first passage problem approach.

J. Zhejiang Univ. (Science A) 7, 1839–1845.

11 Uraga, E. A. and Moan, T. (2007) Fatigue reliability-based

assessment of welded joints applyiog consistent fracture

mechanics formulations. Int. J. Fatigue 29, 444–456.

12 Karadeniz, H., Vrouwenvelder, A. and Bouma, A. L. (1983)

Stochastic fatigue reliability analysis of jacket type offshore

structures. Reliability Theory and its Applications in Structural

and Soil Mechanics (Edited by P. Thoft Chritensen), NATO

Scientific Affairs Division.

13 Marthinsen, T. and Bitner-Gregersen, E. (1990) Joint

distributions for significant wave height and wave

zero-up-crossing period. Elsevier, ISSN: 0141-1187, Appl.

Ocean Res. 12, 93–103.

14 Sarpakaya, T. and Isaacson, M. (1981) Mechanics of Wave

Forces on Offshore Structures, Van Nostrand reinhold

Company, New York.

15 Kjerengtroen, L. and Wirsching, H. (1984) Structural

reliability analysis. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 110, 1495–1511.

16 Torng, T. Y. and Wirsching, H. (1991) Fatigue and fracture

reliability ands maintainability process. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE

117, 3804–3822.

17 Paris, P. C. (1964) The fracture mechanics approach to

fatigue. In: Fatigue and Interdisciplinary Approach, Syracuse

University Press, Burke JJ, New York, pp. 107–132.

18 Val, D. V., Stewart, M. G. and Melchers, R. E. (1998) Effect

of reinforcement corrosion on reliability of hihhway briges.

Eng. Struct. 20, 1010–1019.

19 Siddiqui, N. A. and Ahmad, S. (2001) Fatigue and Fracture

reliability of TLP tethers under random loading. J. Marine

Struct. 14, 331–352.

c

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33, 408–419

Dong and Hong7 presented a master S-N curve approach using the mesh-insensitive structural stress parameter and its direct linkage to fracture mechanics (F-M) principle. Reliability analysis of structures under wave loading (Moses et al. Numerous research studies have been conducted in this field on both the theoretical and practical aspects. In order to offset and complement the frequency domain approach. Sedillot et al. Fatigue and wear studies were carried out on Baldpate compliant tower by Chen and Will.9 proposed a methodology of system reliability-based assessment for the single point mooring jacket platforms. Therefore. they are free to move with wind and waves. The time variant loadings due to wind and waves cause fluctuating shear stresses in the articulated joint of the tower. its fatigue and fracture reliability assessment is of great importance.s. The impact on the fatigue damage due to the low-frequency responses. value of the stress process in the ith sea state ¨ ˙ {θ }. 408–419 . Jin et al. It was concluded that system reliability-based assessment method could provide important and reliable referential c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL JOINT OF A COMPLIANT PLATFORM 409 P f = probability of failure R = structural resistance TF = time to failure TL = lifetime of the structure Tz = zero crossing period u(z) = wind velocity Y(a) = function of crack geometry y j ∗ = value of the variable at the design point in the standard normal space α j = sensitivity of a random variable F = Miner–Palmgren damage index at failure K = range of stress intensity factor = Gamma function γi = fraction of time spent in the ith sea state λ = Wirsching’s wide band correction factor = stress parameter φ = cumulative probability function of a standard normal distribution φ − ( ) = inverse of the standardized normal distribution function σ R = constant amplitude stress range σ R = nominal stress range σi = r. and its failure will lead severe consequences.. In fact. 1 is a compliant offshore structure which is provided with large buoyancy chambers near the water surface. With the master S-N curve method. velocity and displacement vectors INTRODUCTION An articulated tower platform as shown in Fig. its applications were illustrated by using various offshore/marine examples. Siddiqui and Ahmad6 studied fatigue and fracture reliability of tension leg platform tethers under wind and wave loading. Consequently. In their study. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33.1 Wirshing. cannot be fully captured by the traditional frequency domain analysis. LITERATURE SURVEY Fatigue cracking of structural details in offshore structures due to cyclic loading has gained considerable attention in the past few years. tubular joints in offshore structures and pipe joints for riser applications can be collapsed into a single curve. the platform is attached to the sea bed through it that allows controlled articulation under environmental loadings.2 and Committee on Structural Reliability of Offshore Structures3 ) forms a distinct class of problems in the literature called reliability and safety of offshore structures. Low-frequency response is an inherent characteristic of compliant platforms and in general is caused by dynamic wind and wave loadings.m.4 discussed the design and fatigue analysis of a laminated rubber articulated joint for the deep-water gravity articulated tower. however.5 They concluded that the impact of fatigue damage due wind loads are significant and cannot be ignored. Being compliant in nature. a great number of papers have been published resulting in various topics relating to fatigue assessment.{θ }and {θ } = structural acceleration. referred to as the master S-N curve. a time domain direct integration approach has to be adopted for fatigue life assessment of the articulated tower. Fatigue life assessments of the compliant articulated tower require treatment of the low-frequency responses which can aggravate the fatigue damage in the articulation points. Yamashita and Sekita8 carried out fatigue damage analysis on offshore wind turbines subjected to wind and wave loads.

M. They include a crack growth formulation based on bi-linear crack growth law. 1 Articulated tower. suggestions for the design. Fig. Pillai and Veena10 describe a methodology for computation of reliability of members of fixed offshore platforms with respect to fatigue using F-M principle. located at the upper part of the fixed base and on the vertical axis of the structure. and to the outer shell which is located in the base central member. ZAHEER AND N. is surrounded by two rows of eight trapezoidal pads. there is still scope of work in this area because it is associated with large number of uncertainties and a high degree of complexity. The ball joint for the articulated tower has been taken from ‘Deep Water Gravity Tower’. 408–419 . maintenance and repair of single point mooring jackets.4 ). This paper deals with a comprehensive study on the fatigue reliability analysis of articulated tower under wind and wave environment. The torsional moment is resisted by a wide torsional frame as shown in Fig. Description of the ball joint THE ARTICULATION SYSTEM It is composed of two different devices as shown in Figs 2 and 3. The two extreme plates are 40 mm thick. about 6 mm thick. Uraga and Moan11 investigated alternate S-N and F-M formulations of fatigue. 3 The articulation system: torsional frame (Courtesy: Sedillot et al. 3. 10 to 15 mm thick. having two opposite angles connected to the base structure and the two other ones to the steel tower.410 M.20 m in diameter. The pads are firmly fastened to the inner shell which is connected to the central vertical member of the steel tower. as shown in Fig. ISLAM Fig. about 1. These devices collectively allowed an imposed rotation due to the tilting of the tower by environmental forces. Fig. 2 Articulated joint [Courtesy: Sedillot et al. 2. When a rotation is imposed to the c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. supports the vertical and horizontal reactions.4 ). The rubber articulated joint. In addition. very little literature exists on the reliability analysis of articulated joint. Despite continuing research in the area of reliability analysis of offshore structures against dynamic forces. considering both segments of the crack growth law as correlated and non-correlated in the fracture probability calculation.4 which consists of a series of laminated rubber pads inserted between two hemispherical steel shells. This frame is provided in the horizontal diametral plane of the joint. Each pad is composed of a sandwich of layers of rubber. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33. and of curved metallic plates. A central circular pad.

ω2 . 2. φi is the phase angle of the ith component wave randomly chosen between 0 and 2π. Further. . The series representation of sea surface elevation η(t) is given by the equation K η(t) = i=1 Ai cos(ki x − ωi t + φi ). are generated by using wave superposition technique. The selection of frequency ωi is done such that these frequencies are uncorrelated so that they do not constitute harmonics with each other. S(ω) is the spectral density value of one sided sea surface elevation spectrum at the frequency ωi .5 ωi−1 + ωi ωi = ωi − ωi−1 i = 1. Sarpakaya and Isaacson14 gave the following empirical relations for significant wave height Hs and zero crossing period Tz . so that variation of vertical reaction. The linearized small amplitude wave theory allows the summation of velocity potential. Twelve significant wave heights are selected such that f (Hs ) Hs ≈ 1. ωk−1 are chosen. x is the structural displacement. . Ai is the amplitude of the ith component wave.e. sea states have been simulated by using Eqs (1)–(3). at random. The initial frequency ω0 is set equal to ωmin and the last one is ωk = ωmax . . ki is the wave number of the ith component wave. Results in very little vertical displacement.12 The long-term distribution of the significant wave height based on these parameters is given as under f (Hs ) = C B Hs − A B C−1 e −( Hs −A C B ) (1) where A = lower limit of Hs . ωi is the wave frequency of the ith component wave. the range of the frequencies. 3. which develop only negligible resisting forces.594. These results have been presented in Table 2. The parameters A.RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL JOINT OF A COMPLIANT PLATFORM 411 articulation point. ω3 . The generated synthetic random wave is considered to be adequately represented by the summation of K number of sinusoids (harmonics) ωmax ω1 1 k−2 . zero crossing period Tz and mean wind velocity u(z) may be obtained assuming the same probability of occurrence for Tz and u(z) as Hs . (4) where Ai = 2[S(ωi ) ωi ] (5) SIMULATION OF SEA STATE The description of sea states have been given by three parameter Weibull distribution. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33. and following the normal distribution. . wind and waves are considered to be in correlated fashion. from the lowest frequency. represented by a sea surface elevation. these elastomeric pads have a very high stiffness in the axial direction. In this formulation. The random phase angle φi must be chosen such that the resultant function η(t) follows the c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. i. in random phase. ωi is calculated as: ωi = 0. wave elevation and water particle kinematics of individual waves to form a random wave made up of a number of components. B = 2. The area of each strip provides the magnitude of the corresponding probability of occurrence of sea state. mainly due to their low shear stiffness. Tz = 32π Hs g g Hs . The selection is done with the aid of a random-number-generation process program on the computer. . K is the number of wave harmonics considered in the simulation. due to live loads on deck or to effects of environmental loads.385 (Mathinsen and Bitner-Gregersen13 ) Corresponding to a known significant wave height Hs . The synthetic waves corresponding to a particular sea state.290 and C = 1. (11) (12) The above process of random selection of component frequency is repeated for each run of each sea surface elevation spectrum. the secondary dividing frequencies ω1 .283 (2) in which. ωmax is divided into (k − 1) sub-ranges with the dividing frequencies constituting a power series of: ω1 = ωmin + ω2 = ω1 C k ωi = ωi−1 Ck ωk−1 = ω1 Ck where (k−2) ωmax − ωmin k−1 (6) (7) (8) . (9) u(z) = (3) Ck = In the present study. These constants are found to be as A = 0. 408–419 . ωi and its bandwidth. in respective subranges. the inner shell rotates and opposes a tangential distortion to the pads. the whole area under the ( f (Hs ) versus Hs ) curve have been divided into 12 rectangular strips of width Hs . B and C have been obtained from a scatter diagram of North Sea location. . . Finally the component frequency. First. ωmin to the highest frequency. (10) Then. . k. 0. B = scale parameter and C = shape parameter. as given by Karadeniz et al.

θ and {θ } are the structural acceleration. the failure equation g(X) can be expressed as g (X) = R − L. (17) where φ − () is the inverse of the standardized normal distribution function. This has been done with the generation of random numbers normally distributed between 0 and 2π. reliability analysis is performed. • There is no correlation among the two articulated joints. ISLAM Gaussian distribution. Cd = 2. Responses thus obtained. (16) where φ = cumulative probability function of a standard normal distribution. Mathematically. (14) where R = structural resistance and L = load effect The surface g(X) = 0 which separates the safe and unsafe regions is termed as the limit surface. • The topsides wind loading estimation is based on the Simiu wind spectrum assuming an overall drag coefficient. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33. c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue reliability formulation Assumptions Following assumptions are made for the reliability analysis: • Platform failure is defined as the failure of the articulated joint. ZAHEER AND N. The complement. • There is no inspection or repair program of articulated joints before failure. The probability of failure is thus expressed as P f = Pr ob [g (X) ≤ 0] = g(X)<0 Equation of motion The governing equation of motion is given as: ¨ ˙ [I] θ + [C] θ + [K] {θ } = {Mθ }. dynamic analysis of the tower was carried out in time domain and then using its response. Dynamic analysis The dynamic analysis of the platform has been carried out under the following assumptions: • The flexural deformations of the platform are assumed to be small as compared to its displacement as a rigid body. The failure probability in terms of a reliability index can be expressed as: P f = φ (−β) . (13). [C]. Eq. the next step is to integrate the equation of motion. equation of motion is solved in time domain using Newmark’s beta integration method. • The equations of equilibrium at each time step modify elements of the stiffness matrix to account for fluctuating buoyancy. Equation (16) may also be written in terms of the reliability index as follows: β = −φ −1 P f . where f x (X) is the probability density function of the random variable X. Limit state function The reliability of a structure can be determined based on a failure equation in terms of basic variables for structural resistance and loads. (15) where [I] is the mass matrix consisting of structural mass and added mass moment of inertia. the asymptotic approach to the Gaussian distribution is found time-consuming for the number of component waves above 50 and hence the simulation is carried out with 50 component waves. {Mθ } is the forcing function at any instant of time due to wind and waves. are employed for the subsequent reliability analysis. the damping ma¨ ˙ trix and [K].412 M. In the present study.e. i. reliability assessment of articulated joint has been carried out against fatigue and fracture limit state using probabilistic analysis solver NESSUS. 408–419 . RELIABILITY ANALYSIS MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION An articulated tower as shown in Fig. {θ }. 1 − p f . M. Based on the performed studies. the stiffness matrix. A limit state function or failure equation is a mathematical representation of a particular limit state of failure.0. • The tower has uniform properties over the segments of uniform diameters. The reliability of a structure is concerned with the calculation and prediction of the probability of limit state violation at any stage during its entire life. The reliability assessment of universal joint against fatigue and fracture is the objective of the present study. This failure equation is mainly governed by the failure criteria and random variables. velocity and displacement vectors. Having determined the various matrices and force vectors. The formulation for these two analyses is presented in the following sections. (13) f x (X) dx. For this purpose. is accordingly referred to as the reliability. 1 has been considered for mathematical formulation in the present study. A universal joint is provided near the sea bed. In the present study. An assumption is made that the wind direction is perpendicular to the largest projected area.

K =the intercept of the S-N curve at σ R equals to one. Several investigators have demonstrated that the Palmgren–Miner hypothesis cannot be used to accurately predict material behaviour. the accumulated damage D is given as: D= 1 m E [N (TL )] E σ R . In this approach. the fatigue life of a structure under different stress ranges is the weighted sum of the individual lives at constant stress (σ ) as given by the S-N curves.s. accumulated damage D is written as: N(TL ) D= j =1 m σR j K . mo (28) is zero The ALP is subjected to combined action of wind and waves which are random in nature.m. it has been assumed that the damage on the structural component per load cycle D j is constant at a given stress range σ R j and is given by: Dj = 1 N(σ R j ) (20) is a Gamma function. then the associated uncertainty with the sum is to be very small and the sum can be replaced by its expected value. K (26) The total damage can be obtained by summing up the accumulated damage over all the sea states which yields: D= TL K is a stress parameter given as: m n where N =number of cycles to fatigue failure. This c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 408–419 . Equation (6) can also be written as: log N = log K − m log σ R (19) (27) where. σ R =constant amplitude stress range at N and m =slope of the S-N curve. Using the S-N curve. each stress is a random variable. with each being weighted according to fractional exposure to that level of stress range. According to miner’s rule. and the mean value of the stress range follows directly as: m E σ Ri = ∞ 0 (2 p)m p 1 exp − σp 2 m . Nevertheless. (22) If N(TL ) is relatively large. Consequently. the F-M approach is based on the existence of an initial crack in a stress free structure. fi = crossing frequency of the stress process in the ith sea ∞ state. the stress process is stochastic in nature and therefore. surface conditions. σi = mo is the r. as the most viable fatigue failure criterion in the case of variable amplitude loading. The S-N model is generally used for high cycle fatigue and the basic equation that represents the S-N curve is given by: K N= m σR (18) where N(σ R j ) is the number of cycles to cause failure at stress range σ R j . loading rate. However. (23) Stress ranges are Rayleigh distributed for a narrow band Gaussian process. Failure occurs if D ≥ F . Therefore. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33. √ = 2 2 in which 1+ m 2 fi γi σim i=1 1 2π m2 . The characteristic S-N approach The characteristic S-N approach is based on the assumption that fatigue damage accumulation is a linear phenomenon (Miner’s rule). metal fatigue is an extremely complicated process involving two distinct phases (crack initiation and propagation) and subject to influence by many factors such as mean stress. mo = 0 ωn S(ω)dω is the nth moment of the stress spectrum. value of the stress process in the ith sea state. The S-N approach is based on experimental measurement of fatigue life in terms of cycles to failure for different stress ranges. etc.RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL JOINT OF A COMPLIANT PLATFORM 413 FATIGUE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN APPROACHES Two general approaches are widely reported in the literature for fatigue and fracture limit state formulations: (i) S-N curve approach (Kjerengtroen and Wirsching15 ) and (ii) F-M approach (Torng and Wirsching16 ). γi is the fraction of time spent in the ith sea √ state to account for long-term sea state effect. the Pierson-Moskowitz (P-M rule) remains. where F is the value of the Miner–Palmgren damage index at failure. Failure is assumed to occur when the damage measured D = 1. It is not surprising that a very simple model would fail to provide an accurate description of a complex phenomenon. The total damage accumulated in lifetime of the structure TL is given by: N(TL ) D= j =1 1 N σR j (21) in which N(TL ) is the total number of stress cycles to failure at stress range σ R j in time TL . 2 p σp 2 dp (24) √ m = (2 2)m σ p 1+ (25) Hence. for general design purposes. On the other hand. N(TL ) E j =1 m m σ R j = E [N (TL )] E σ R j .

(30) Define the intended service life of the structure as TL . given below. k = range of stress intensity factor. Linear-elastic F-M relate the growth of a crack of size a to the number of fatigue cycles N. reaches critical crack size a c r . The fracture mechanics approach F-M approach is concerned with the study of the behaviour of structures containing flaws or cracks and is based on crack growth data. The limit state function takes the form as: g (X) = 1 C◦ Bim ac r m i a◦ γi Y (a) m dx √ πx m − TL (41) If x1 = C◦ . x2 . The reliability is thus obtained by the expression: β=φ −1 where is a stress parameter given by Eq. x2 = Bi . x3 . The range of the stress intensity factor is given by: √ (37) K = Y (a) σ R πa. Equation (38) is modified to account for stress process from all sea states as: ac r a◦ If x1 = F . the limit state function is: g(X) = F Ki Bim − TL . (35) where φ − ( ) is the inverse of standardized normal distribution function. the basic damage expression can be expressed in terms of time to failure TF of the articulated joint as: TF = FK Paris fatigue crack growth law (Paris17 ) da = C◦ ( K )m dN K >0 (36) . x4 ) = 1 m m x1 x2 x4 π m/2 × ac r z3 dx − TL . this model will not model the crack initiation phase. it can be c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. which accounts for the magnitude of the stress. failure is assumed to have occurred. However. and weld and joint details. x4 = γi then g (X) = g (x1 . Then the probability of failure of the joint is P f = P (TF − TL ). The growth rate is proportional to the stress range. current crack size. x3 ) = x1 x2 − TL . but the damage measure D is not related to a direct physical quantity such as crack length. For fatigue failure. The most common relationship is the in which Bi and γi are introduced to model errors in the estimation of the stress range σ R and the geometry function Y(a). (34) and (35). (28). x2 = K i . However. Y (a)m x m/2 (42) The probability of failure and safety index is given by Eqs. and it ignores sequence effects. a = crack size. (31) where σ R is the nominal stress range and Y(a) is a function of crack geometry. This approach is more detailed and it involves examining crack growth and determining the number of load cycles that are needed for small initial defects to grow into cracks large enough to cause fracture. E[. ZAHEER AND N. x2 . (32) where NT is the total number of stress cycles over the service life TL (years). Bim da in which dN = crack growth rate. Letting D = F . (29) The time of failure TF for the joint. x3 = a ◦ . taking into account the uncertainties involved in the F-M approach TF = 1 C◦ Bim ac r m i a◦ (34) γi Y (a) m dx √ πx m (40) (P f ). x3 = Bi then limit state function in Eq. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33. 408–419 . STRESS RANGE CALCULATION The fatigue stress process over the service life of an offshore structure is non-stationary. Thus. Combining the above two equations and accounting for variable amplitude loading. √ Y(a)m ( π x)m (39) The probability of failure P f is given as: P f = Pr ob(TF ≤ TL ) = P [g(X) ≤ 0]. (32) can be written as: g(X) = g(x1 . ISLAM formulation has the advantage of simplicity. N = number of fatigue cycles and C◦ and m are crack propagation parameters. (38) The fatigue failure occurs when the random variable TF is less than TL .414 M. m x3 (33) dx = C◦ TL . considering the associated factors as random variables may be given as: TF = F Ki . The probabilistic model for the time to failure TF is defined by Equation (40). M. It is expressed in terms of a stress intensity factor K .] is expectation. we have: ac r a◦ dx √ Y (a) πx m m m = C◦ NT E σ R . TF is smaller than TL . a ◦ is initial crack size and a c r is the crack size at failure. When crack size a.

The respective time histories so obtained are statistically analysed and response statistics are obtained (Tables 3 and 4) for the two loading environments. each being characterized by significant wave height. The sensitivity of a random variable is computed as: The geometrical and mechanical characteristics of double hinged articulated tower used in the reliability study are given in Table 1. it is established that predicted fatigue life.033 m b (m) = 1. 19. the value of D f will be evaluated for the joint. where a(m) =0. and combined action of wind and waves.50 and 4. The probability of occurrence of each sea state is usually available as sea scatter diagram. m) = a (m) + [1 − a (m)] (1 − εi )b(m) . The constant D f is a measure of the accumulated damage for all sea states. y j ∗ is the value of this variable at the design point in the standard normal space.0. the lesser is the influence of the jth random variable on the reliability (Val et al. Wirsching’s wide band correction factor is applied to account for the possible error in the narrow band assumption. After the structure is analysed for all the sea states.Hs and wave period.323 and εi is the spectral width parameter for ith sea state. inertia and added mass Value 240 m 160 m 2. buoyancy. c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.5 m 20. (45) where g 1 is the failure surface in the normalized coordinate.26 s 20 years 17. For a typical ocean structure problem. The expression for stress parameter after applying wide band correction factor λ is given by √ = 2 2 or m Table 1 Properties of double pendulum articulated tower platform Features Height of bottom tower Height of top tower Structural mass of top and bottom tower Structural mass of ballast Deck mass Time periods (lower and upper shaft) Service life Effective diameters (tower shafts) For drag. A study of the sensitivity analysis helps to identify the variables of the model that most significantly influence the reliability of the structure. For the model of a simple bottom founded structure. The lower the magnitude of α j . The simulated time histories are long enough (3600 s) in order to produce stable tower response statistics and accurately predict the platform low-frequency responses. using the time simulation and rainflow counting methods was approximately 30% higher than the estimated life employing the commonly used narrow band assumption.79 for m = 4. where λi is Wirsching’s wide band correction factor for ith sea state. Estimates of λi is obtained by the following empirical expressions given by: λi (εi .587 m − 2.5 and 7.Tz .38 and λi ∼ 0. inertia and added mass Effective diameter (buoyancy chamber) For drag. 2. 408–419 . The ball joint of the tower has been taken from Deep Water Gravity Tower4 whose details are shown in Fig. if εi > 0. The long-term statistical properties of stress history are obtained by evaluating the short-term statistics for each sea state separately and weighing them according to the long-term sea state probabilities. which in turn represents stress. 32.5 E 07 N 37. Hydrodynamic loading for the structure were evaluated using modified Morison’s equation. The long-term description of the sea.86 for m = 3 = = (46) NUMERICAL STUDY MEASURES OF SENSITIVITY First-order reliability method (FORM) analysis provides a measure of the sensitivity of the reliability index to the random variables modelled in the analysis. 7.RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL JOINT OF A COMPLIANT PLATFORM 415 modelled by a sequence of several discrete stationary sea states.5. Dynamic wind loads based on the Simiu wind spectrum were accounted for in the time domain fatigue analysis. then λi ∼ 0.926–0. In this study. For 12 simulated sea states (Table 2).5 m αj = −⎧ ⎨ ⎩ ∂g 1 ∂y j n j =1 ∗ ∂g 1 ∂y j 2⎬ ∗ ⎫1/2 ⎭ (47) 1+ m 2 n fi γi σim λi i=1 (43) √ = 2 2 m 1+ m Df .18 ). a detailed dynamic analysis has been carried out for wave only. buoyancy. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33. 2 (44) where D f = fi γi σim λi . and are derived using a Monte Carlo simulation technique. Critical structural damping ratios of 3% were used in the fatigue analysis.03 s. The fatigue stress in an offshore environment is generally a wide band stochastic process.0 E 5 N/m 448 400 N/m 2. The random wind and wave loads are treated as two independent processes. is complete if the probability of occurrence of each sea state is known.

36 11. The reliability indices values from the two approaches obtained for wave only are 4.66 18.65 14.0 COV 0.38 23.66 31.00001437 0. stress σim (MPa) 38.00000037 0.07 14.08851105 0. F Fatigue strength coefficient.65 8.395 0.30 0.10 Distribution Log normal Log normal Log normal Exponential Constant Constant Table 3 Statistics of hinge shear stresses under long crested random wave only Sea state.046 4.577 Monte Carlo Pf 0. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33.381.75 17. ISLAM Table 2 Simulated sea states Wind Significant Fraction of Sea velocity wave Dominant time in state.14 8.50 5.65 13.00040572 0.186 4. response statistics of hinge shear stresses have been obtained for 12 simulated sea states as shown in Table 3.66 12. ZAHEER AND N.187 0.15 20.22831162 0.00773824 0.0 COV 0.640 0.65 11.81 15.63 4.325 0. a c (mm) Paris exponent.m.29 22.674 0.94 9. i u (m/s) height.43542358 0.581 0.631 R.401 0.153 0.75 16. m Mean/median 1. i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Fraction of time in each sea state.18 13.27 E +12 MPa 1.00773824 0.15 12.00040572 0.63 0. Tz (s) each sea state.00000037 0. γi 0.09 12. 408–419 .02822122 0.33 1.00000238 0.m. reliability analyses have been carried out using S-N curve and F-M approaches.22831162 0. m Mean/median 1.63 36.00007980 0.22831162 0.00773824 0.381 0. i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Fraction of time in each sea state.15 0.042 0.69 9.0 0.373 0.63 0.142E -4 0. B Modelling error in Y(a).43 13.65 2.260E -4 0.00000238 0.49 14.29 16.94 19.58 0.711 R.08851105 0. stress σim (MPa) 40.236E -5 β 4.332 0.00000037 0.0 1.69 18.00007980 0.20 Distribution Log normal Log normal Log normal Constant Table 6 Data for fatigue reliability investigation (F-M model) Random variable Paris coefficient. C Stress modelling error.613 0.0 5.86 6.88 9.08851105 0.20 0.337 0.25 8.43542358 0.02822122 0.417 0. A Stress modelling error.8 E -12 MPa 1.416 M. Subsequently.00187129 0.69 2.58 10. B Fatigue exponent. c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.26 18.15 3.39 10. a ◦ (mm) Critical crack length.333E -5 β 4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Wave alone environment To study the joint reliability under wave alone.71 27.404 0.26 7.20942036 Table 5 Data for fatigue reliability investigation (S-N model) Random variable P-M damage index at failure.00000238 0.19 3. γi Initial crack length.26 6.15 6.504 Table 4 Statistics of hinge shear stresses under long crested random waves + wind Sea state.00007980 0.15 15.75 28.0 3.26 12.392 0.313 0.00187129 0.00001437 0.401 0.12 4.52 35.07 The description of random variables considered in the reliability analysis based on the Miner–Palmgren damage model and F-M model has been given in Tables 5 and 6.005 8.78 1.15 43.20942036 Zero crossing rate fi 0.0 3.s.04 11.65 5. M.43542358 0.36 26.48 2.02822122 0.149 0.00040572 0.46 Table 7 Probability of failure and reliability index using S-N curve approach Reliability method (→) Sea environment (↓) Wave only Wave + wind FORM Pf 0.00001437 0.15 9.186 and 4. The probability of failure and reliability indices of the joint obtained from S-N and F-M model are shown in Tables 7 and 8.s. γi 0. γi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 24. Hs (m) period.508 0.20942036 Zero crossing rate fi 0.602 0.00187129 0.

381 4. Design point or most probable point A point on the limit state surface that corresponds to the shortest distance from the origin in the reduced coordinate system is defined as the design point or most probable point.577 for S-N model and from 4. sensitivity factor for stress modelling error (Bi ) is positive. 408–419 . γi . Table 10 Sensitivity factors using F-M approach Sensitivity factor (→) Sea environment (↓) Wave only Wave + wind respectively (using advanced FORM simulation). effective wave height exponent reduces prior to wave breaking.113E -4 β 4. Whereas. This reduction is of the order of 8. This is due to the fact that in F-M approach. and fatigue α1 0.3374 −0. it is observed that zero crossing rate increases when wind is included. In such designs partial safety factors for load and resistance variables are determined c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.237 Table 9 Sensitivity factors using S-N curve approach Sensitivity factor (→) Sea environment (↓) Wave only Wave + wind α1 −0.3372 α2 −0. In the present study. Furthermore. It is also seen that out of the two resistance variables. reliability of articulated joint will decrease for any increase in magnitude of random variables as all of them are load variables. hence. reliability index has been improved from 4. It is seen that all the random variables appearing in the limit state function are positive which shows that these variables will contribute to the load part only. through thickness crack is normally defined as failure criteria. Therefore. It makes a more realistic model of ocean environment.51296 α4 0. they are resistance variables.6645 −0.RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL JOINT OF A COMPLIANT PLATFORM 417 Table 8 Probability of failure and reliability index using F-M approach Reliability method (→) Sea environment (↓) Wave only Wave + wind FORM Pf 0.694 Monte Carlo Pf 0.5 and 6. On the other hand in F-M approach. Again from Tables 7 and 8.28835 0.381 to 4. Tables 11 and 12 show the values of the design point on failure surface for the two approaches.694 for F-M model using advanced FORM formulation. hence. Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis gives quantitative dependence of reliability on the value of sensitivity factor for random variables.29144 α 1 = Paris coefficient C.6641 α3 0. it will contribute to load part of the limit state function. Table 10 shows results of sensitivity analysis for F-M based model. Response statistics of hinge shear stresses under combined action of wind and waves are given in Table 4. Design point values are essential for reliability based probabilistic design of articulated joint.186 to 4. it is seen that wind causes a reduction of probability of failure. The sensitivity factors for Miner–Palmgren damage index ( F ).57866 α3 0.52784 0. It is therefore essential to accurately model the statistical information of fatigue strength coefficient (A).6% for S-N and F-M approaches using FORM formulation. reliability of the joint is more sensitive to (A) than ( F ). Table 9 shows the sensitivity factor values of random variables in the limit state function based on S-N curve approach. Combined wind and wave environment Analysis under wave alone is not a realistic proposition because wind is the major source of sea wave generation.57252 0.6668 0.55718 0. Due to this attenuation effect. It is mainly due to the attenuating effect of the wind19 which acts on the exposed superstructure of the articulated tower. This is because in S-N approach. critical crack size (a ◦ ) is the resistance parameter which has been assumed as deterministic. strength coefficient (A) are negative. the reliability of the joint is influenced more by variation in the fatigue strength coefficient (A) than P-M damage index at failure F for both the loading environments. Tables 7 and 8 also shows that advanced FORM formulation gave results in close proximity with Monte Carlo method. For a given uncertainty.007 4. This may be due to the fact that by the incorporation of wind loading. On comparing Tables 3 and 4. α 3 = Initial crack length a ◦ and α 4 = Modelling error in Y(a). Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33.6673 α 1 = P-M damage index at failure F . failure occurs when an initial crack size (original imperfections) reaches to final crack size (unstable length).593E -5 0. It is also seen that out of the two resistance variables. advanced FORM formulation provides equally viable solution for fatigue reliability as Monte Carlo simulation method.133E -5 β 4.56313 α2 0. These results show that the S-N curve approach gives somewhat conservative results as compared to F-M approach. α 2 = Stress modelling error B.306E -4 0. correlated wind and waves are considered (Table 2). α 3 = Stress modelling error B. α 2 = Fatigue strength coefficient A.

corresponding probability of failure also increases. c = F and Bi (log normal).38 4.508 4.618272 z2 0.549 4.27 10.106 × 10−4 β 4.54 1.6686 1. These reliability methods are: (i) FORM.78 b 8. Thus it may be concluded that for fatigue analysis an accurate assumption of random variable distribution is highly significant.171 × 10−6 0.816E +12 z3 1. the reliability is under estimated for case d when all the random variables are normally distributed.34 c 10. z2 = Stress modelling error B.433 × 10−7 0.960 4.67 z1 0. Tables 15 and 16 shows an expected trend.9 E -10 7.57 b 3. (ii) Advanced First Order Reliability Method (AFORM) and (iii) Monte Carlo method.26 3.862 4. 408–419 . Table 13 Effect of probability distribution in random variables on reliability index (S-N model) Reliability method → Sea environment ↓ Wave only Wave + wind FORM A 4. b = Co (normal).56 d 1. γi . target reliability index). FORM is also equally good method of reliability estimation.949E +12 0.093 1. d = All random variables are normally distributed.381 4.27 C 1.269 × 10−5 0. Table 12 Design point or most probable point using F-M approach Random variables (→) Sea environment (↓) Wave only Wave + wind a = All variables have original distribution except a ◦ (exp). z2 = Fatigue strength coefficient A and z3 = Stress modelling error B.29 7. reliability is overestimated if all the variables are considered as normally distributed. Bi and γi (log normal).853 × 10−6 0.491 × 10−6 0. For F-M model. ISLAM Table 11 Design point or most probable point using S-N curve approach Random variables (→) Sea environment (↓) Wave only Wave + wind Table 14 Effect of probability distribution in random variables on reliability index (F-M model) Reliability method → Sea environment ↓ Wave only Wave + wind FORM a 4. d = All variables are normally distributed except a ◦ (exp).418 M.249 × 10−5 β 5.01 d 8. therefore. z3 = Initial crack length a ◦ and z4 = Modelling error in Y(a).133 × 10−5 0. c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.326 z1 6. As the design life requirement increases.098 4.7 E -10 z2 1.54 1.0194 0.250 Wind +wave Pf 0.593 × 10−5 0. Effect of design life Design life directly affects the probability of failure of articulated joint. Effect of probability distribution To study the effect of probability distributions of random variables on the reliability of articulated joint. a ◦ = Exponential. Table 17 shows that reliability indices are in close agreement.142 × 10−4 0. four cases have been considered as shown in Tables 13 and 14.642856 0.577 4.694 4.236 × 10−5 0. for achieving the target reliability (i. b = F and Bi (normal). Effect of reliability method Probabilities of failure and reliability indices of three different reliability methods have been compared in Table 17 for wave only and wave plus wind. Same results have been obtained for case c also. ZAHEER AND N.895 4. c = Co (log normal).785 4.114 z1 = Paris coefficient C.07 9.7589 z1 = P-M damage index at failure F .18 4.681 z3 0.56 Table 16 Effect of design life on probability of failure using F-M approach Service life TL (years) 10 15 20 25 Wave only Pf 0.326 × 10−5 0.421 × 10−4 β 4.561 1. Table 15 Effect of design life on probability of failure using S-N curve approach Service life TL (years) 10 15 20 25 Wave only Pf 0. a ◦ = Exponential. M.e. Ai (normal).932 Wind +wave Pf 0.756 × 10−5 β 5. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33. Ai (log normal).353 4. The results show that for S-N model.581 × 10−6 0. The reliability index for case b is improved significantly indicating that exact distribution of variable Ai governs the probability of failure.565 a = All random variables are log normally distributed.353 × 10−6 0.Bi and γi (normal).0213 z4 1.186 3.

166–171. and Wirsching. T. 2340–2356. G. A. 1495–1511. F. L. A. (1982) Laminated rubber articulated joint for the deep water gravity tower. Eng. P. E.046 4. Ocean Res. Van Nostrand reinhold Company. P. Y. • For fatigue analysis an accurate assumption of random variable distribution is highly significant. H. Struct. ASCE 117. (1998) Effect of reinforcement corrosion on reliability of hihhway briges. (1982) Fatigue reliability: Variable amplitude loading. J. A. Div.577 Monte Carlo Pf 0. 1010–1019. K. and Sekita. P. OMAE. 408–419 . Houston. (Science A) 7. 331–352. S. C. Marine Struct. C. J. 12. Eng. A. J.. economical and accurate method for the reliability estimation. S. Thoft Chritensen). TX. Proceeding of the 14th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. (1980) Applicability of reliability analysis in offshore design practice. pp. Struct. H. 107–132. Siddiqui. Proceeding of the 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.218 AFORM Pf 0. Chen.. 1839–1845. ASCE 108. 1–12. • Fatigue reliability of universal joint is inversely proportional to its service life. J. API Practice Project (final report).142 × 10−4 0. 14. and Russel. E. D. OMAE-2005. L. Uraga. Torng. Houston. N. H. 47–69. Jin. (1999) Design of the baldpate tower for fatigue and wear. pp. advanced FORM is computationally efficient. OTC-1999.. • In S-N curve approach. and Will. ISOPE.. TX. Burke JJ. Kjerengtroen. (2004) The master S-N curve approach to fatigue evaluation of offshore and marine structures. Greece. and Moan. and Bouma. ASCE 110. and Wirsching. Int. M. N. and Ahmad. Struct. (1981) Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures. Syracuse University Press. (2005) System reliability-based assessment on single point mooring jacket platform. Siddiqui. 79–122.186 4.-F. A. E. Div. C. Struct. 10917. J. Struct. REFERENCES 1 Moses.-L.RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF UNIVERSAL JOINT OF A COMPLIANT PLATFORM 419 Table 17 Effect of reliability method (S-M model) FORM Sea idealization Wave only Wave + wind Pf 0. Yamashita. S. reliability is most sensitive to stress modelling error (B) and least sensitive to modelling error in geometry function (γ ). ASCE 110. and Song. Y. Karadeniz..489 × 10−5 β 4. 277–283. T. Committee on Fatigue and Fracture Reliability. T. A. 331–352. W. New York. 20. M. Stewart. Halkidiki. 93–103. In: Fatigue and Interdisciplinary Approach. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 33. G. and Hong. J. L. (2004) Analysis of the fatigue damage on the large scale offshore wind turbines exposed to wind and wave loads. and Bitner-Gregersen. Paper No. Marthinsen. • Probabilities of failure and reliability indices obtained from advanced FORM and Monte Carlo methods are observed to be in close proximity. Proceeding of the 23rd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. • The inclusion of wind with waves in the analysis causes a reduction of probability of failure of the universal joint. Pillai.. New York. pp. Val...504 CONCLUSIONS 7 Following conclusions may be drawn from the study: • S-N curve approach yields a significantly conservative estimate of probability of failure as compared to the F-M approach. pp. Wirsching. Therefore. (1984) Fatigue reliability for offshore structures. NATO Scientific Affairs Division. (2006) Fatigue reliability analysis of fixed offshore structures: a first passage problem approach. (1990) Joint distributions for significant wave height and wave zero-up-crossing period. J. pp. A. 341–350. T.236 × 10−5 β 4.333 × 10−5 β 4.025 4. Elsevier.284 × 10−4 0. Proceeding of 14th Annual Offshore Technology Conference (OTC 4195). Appl. T. Sedillot. 1. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 2 3 15 16 4 17 5 18 6 19 Dong. Marine Struct. V. (2001) Fatigue and Fracture reliability of TLP tethers under random loading. and Stevenson. Dorris. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. H. Vol.. Reliability Theory and its Applications in Structural and Soil Mechanics (Edited by P. and Veena. Vancouver. M. (2001) Fatigue and fracture reliability of TLP tethers under random loading. (1991) Fatigue and fracture reliability ands maintainability process. A. c 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (2007) Fatigue reliability-based assessment of welded joints applyiog consistent fracture mechanics formulations. Vrouwenvelder. 3804–3822. ISSN: 0141-1187. J. 14. R. F. G. Gong. Eng.260 × 10−4 0. Zhejiang Univ. Canada. and Isaacson. (1964) The fracture mechanics approach to fatigue. He. and Ahmad. 444–456. K. J. J. (1984) Structural reliability analysis. (1983) Stochastic fatigue reliability analysis of jacket type offshore structures. the reliability is more sensitive to fatigue strength coefficient (A) while in F-M approach. Sarpakaya. Fatigue 29. Paris. and Melchers.

- UGM2014_presentation_Colombia.pdfUploaded byRuth Edmy Cano
- A simulation of fatigue crack propagatio+Uploaded bycozy2
- V65-P142Uploaded byMehdi Farrokhi
- Design of Fatigue StrengthUploaded byRaviteja Vga
- API 12Uploaded byLuong Cao Linh
- reabUploaded bygembulflow8153
- 1-Progressive Damage Analysis (Davila)Uploaded byckleenordam
- Analysis required in CaeUploaded bySuhail Abdul
- Transportation Statistics: casualty causeUploaded byBTS
- IRC 6-2016Uploaded byManvendra Nigam
- Nasa/Tm—2007 214914Uploaded byjr-parshanth
- 2000_Fatigue Estimation Using BS5400Uploaded byjoaobarbosa22
- Acoustic Emission of Fatigue Crack in Pressure Pipe Under Cyclic PressureUploaded byAlireza Zahra
- Basis of Structural Design_Handbook 1Uploaded bycristinelb
- C45EUploaded byTrương Định
- JAERI ResearchUploaded byMuhammad Naveed
- IMO MODU-89.pdfUploaded byDileep Kumar Pm
- V001T03A022-IPC2016-64443Uploaded byMhd Abdou
- p9Uploaded bydilip
- Expanded hole method for arresting crack propagation: residual stress determination using neutron diffractionUploaded byNima Rzv
- sakin2016Uploaded bykhudhayer1970
- Course Word VersionUploaded byRaju Mbk
- Fatigue Life of Riveted JointUploaded bykamlesh
- HP Oil TubeUploaded byRangga Waspialdi
- F1801.1479757-1Uploaded byThaweekarn Changthong
- 127-374-2-PBUploaded bySanzhar Rakhimkul
- 178. Effects of Residual Surface Stress and TemperingUploaded byAina Oluwasanmi
- Fatigue of Dental Implants: Facts and FallaciesUploaded bySincere22
- I08TPC-293JukeUploaded byViola Hippie
- Rating Sizing nUploaded bymongasa

- Scour Development in Complex Sediment BedsUploaded bymohammadbeik
- Modelling of Piles in usfosUploaded bymohammadbeik
- 6712-28733-1-PBUploaded bymohammadbeik
- development of p-y curves for monopiles in clayUploaded bymohammadbeik
- . System Failure Probability of Offshore Jack Up Platforms in the Combination of Fatigue and Fracture [Pub Year]Uploaded bymohammadbeik